VIRUPAXAPPA JUNJAPPA Vs. SKANKARAPPA HEMAGIRIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree, dated, 5.4.1978, passed by the Civil Judge, Haveri, in R.A.No. 178/ 74, on his file, allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree, dated 20.4.1974, passed by the II Addl Munsiff, Ranebennur, in O S. No. 59/ 1972, on his file, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property. Plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for specific performance of a contract in respect of suit property which is part of CTS. No 1760 & 1761 of Ranebennur, consisting of two rooms. The suit property, according to the plaintiff, belonged to the minor defendant, his genetive father having purchased it for Rs. 1,000- on 17.6.1964, in the name of the minor.

(2.) The father aid guardian enteredinto an agreement with the plaintiff on 13.3.1969, agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.1200 receiving Rs 600 on the date of the agreement. It was further agreed that the properties should be sold to the plaintiff as soon as he offered to pay the balance of sale consideration. The plaintiff, accordingly requested the defendant several times to execute the sale deed. Ultimately, issued a lawyer's notice on 1.3.1972 asling the defendant to perform his part of the contract. The defendant was not willing. He denied the agreement. Hence the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit for specific performance on 1.4.1972 before the learned Musiff. He averred in the plaint that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract ever since the date of the agreement.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant. He contended that the property was of the minor and as such the agreement was not legal and valid He further denied that there was any necessity for entering into such an agreement. According to him, he took a loan of Rs. 600 from the plaintiff and even returned that amount. Therefore, there was no agreement to sell. He denied the agreement. According to him the suit was barred by time. The trial Court framed the following issues, as arising for its consideration from the pleadings: "1) Does the plaint'ff prove the suit sale agreement dated 13.3 1969 for Rs. 1,200/- and hnd paid Rs. 600/- as earnest money? 2) Does the defendant prove that he executed an agreement of sale deed on 13.3.1969 undar the circumstances stated at para-6 of his written statement? 3) To what reliefs are the parties entitled? 4) What order and decreed The trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, answered all the issues against the plaintiff and in that view dismissed the suit with rests.